Delhi High Court
Gopal & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 18 May, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C.1769/2012
Date of Decision: 18 .05.2012
GOPAL & ANR. .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Pramod Aggarwal and
Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocates
Versus
STATE & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for State
with SI Afaque Ahmad, PS Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR
No.101/2010 registered under Section 307/34 IPC on the complaint of
respondent No.3 Deepak .
In the above mentioned FIR it was stated that on 16.4.2010
respondents, who are classmates in their college, were going back to their
respective houses at round 9:30 p.m. in Majlis Park area. On their way,
they met petitioners No.1 and 2 and one other boy, namely, Gagan. It has
been alleged that petitioner no. 2 Lucky caught hold of respondent no. 2
Crl M..C.No.1769/2012 Page 1 of 4
Dinesh and petitioner no.1 Gopal stabbed respondent Dinesh in his
stomach with a knife and also hit him in his head with a stick due to
which Dinesh fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Seeing
this, all three of them fled from the spot. Respondent No.3 then made a
call to the police which took him to the hospital for medical treatment.
Charges have been framed against the petitioners under Section 307/34
IPC by the Court of learned ASJ, Rohini on 16.3.2012. The other co-
accused, Gagan has been let off by the Juvenile Justice Board on account
of his minority and statement given by Dinesh stating that he wants to
give a chance to Gagan for his rehabilitation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for the quashing
of the FIR on the ground that the matter has been settled between the
parties and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial
court proceedings.
On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the
quashing of FIR on account of the serious nature of the offence.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the file.
Crl M..C.No.1769/2012 Page 2 of 4
The offence under Section 307 IPC being grave in nature is non-
compoundable, but under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court while exercising
its inherent powers can allow compounding of such offences, if it is
deemed necessary for meeting the ends of justice.
From the perusal of FIR, it is evident that the respondents were met
by the petitioners while they were going back home and did nothing that
would amount to provocation or instigation of the petitioners leading to a
deadly assault. Vide MLC No.8386, it is seen that the victim Dinesh
received a stab injury on the right side of his abdomen and also a serious
head injury. The attack was made by a knife which shows that it was
done with a knowledge and intention to kill respondent No.2. This is not
a behaviour of average peace loving or law abiding citizens. The attack
could have proved life threatening for the victim Dinesh, if timely
medical assistance would have not been provided to him.
It is a settled legal proposition that quashing of FIR in such cases is
not to be allowed as a matter of routine on account of compromise
between the parties. What has to be seen is whether in the given factual
matrix such quashing would be in the interest of justice or not. Further,
there could be multiple factors like fear of counter attack, prolonged
Crl M..C.No.1769/2012 Page 3 of 4
litigation and loss of valuable time and energy that could weigh on the
mind of the victim forcing him to settle the matter with the accused
persons. Moreover, such a crime is not only an attack on the individual,
but a menace to the whole society
In light of the unprovoked serious assault made by the petitioners
on the unarmed respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that the present
case does fall in the ambit of the cases which would warrant the exercise
of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion the petition being without any
merit is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
MAY 18 , 2012
sv
